Friday, April 27, 2012

Anyone who has served in the U.S. Army in days past heard the command, “smoke ‘em if you got ‘em” numerous times. It was acknowledgement from Squad Leaders or Platoon Sergeants that it was time for a break, take a rest from whatever the Troops were doing and if you were a smoker, like most were way back when, enjoy a smoke.

I don’t know whether or not the Army still uses the phrase, but the phrase and smoking of a cigarette or cigar is definitely out of favor around the country, given that we now know the dangers of tobacco use.

We saw it not too long ago as the Vancouver, Washington city council unanimously approved a smoking ban in all city parks, after chasing smokers out of nearly every building in existence in the state when Initiative 901 passed in 2005.

In the meantime, taxes were added to a pack of cigarettes amounting to $3.025 a pack, placing Washington State in the top 5 states for high tobacco taxes.

The taxes were sold as needed to fund certain health programs, predominately “for the children” and to encourage smokers to quit smoking, which means the state would receive less revenue “for the children.” Currently, the state is looking into adding the same exorbitant taxes on “roll your own” cigarettes.

It’s apparent the act of lighting up and smoking, even outdoors now is strongly frowned upon while the revenue from their sale is looked for.

I don’t know of anybody that questions the harmful effects of tobacco use, but these bans are not directed at forcing smokers to quit. No, they are intended to protect non-smokers from the evils of “second-hand smoke” which much like global warming, the anti-smoking crowd declares the “debate is over,” regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

Let me state here that I do not condone a smoker lighting up in the presence of a non-smoker. They do stink to high heaven and are very offensive to others.

But this notion of totally banning smoking inside and outside while still expecting sufficient revenue from the sale of the product to fund programs “for the children” makes no sense to me.

There is also the matter of enforcing tobacco bans in parks at a time we hear elected officials saying they cannot fund parks maintenance and have had to lay off city and county employees. If there is not some official present, what can be done if someone does light up in a remote park?

While the Clark County Board of Commissioners recently tightened up smoking restrictions in county parks, adding “tobacco free zones” in some, they stopped short of following the Vancouver City Council’s move of a “total ban” in all of the county’s parks, drawing the ire of the Columbian’s Editorial Board who says, In Our View: Ban Smoking in County Parks.

That tobacco remains a 100% legal product and is sold with punitive taxes attached to every pack that the state depends upon receiving in these dark economic times seem to escape those who demonize tobacco and those who use it.

Commissioner Tom Mielke, a conservative Republican said, “We’re unable to protect everyone from everything. So how far do we go,” indicating too that these bans amount to an incremental encroachment on people’s personal freedoms.

Liberal Democrat Commissioner Steve Stuart questioned how long it takes for smoke to dissipate outside, receiving the answer of “The surgeon general says no secondhand smoke is safe,” from Dr. Alan Melnick, Clark County health officer who also replied that the time for smoke to dissipate varies, depending upon factors such as wind and how many people are smoking.

Stuart commented that “without data to show when one’s right to smoke infringes on anothers right to smoke-free air, he couldn’t support banning a legal substance from parks.”

Commissioner Marc Boldt, supposedly also a Republican was the lone supporter of a full, outright ban said, “Unless there’s an outright ban in neighborhood and community parks, I can’t see going any further,” adding, “the commissioners are tasked with protecting the public’s health.”

I need not bother go into so many other acts in public that are offensive, pose a risk to health or could result in injury, they are well known and not subject to such bans, yet.

Just about everyone I know who still smokes makes every effort to avoid non-smokers when they light up. Even in parks, I See them walk away from people to keep their smoke away from them. Most won’t even smoke in their own homes, stepping outside to smoke and keep the stink from accumulating inside that visitors would find offensive.

But many are getting tired of being pushed further and further away and forced to pay punitive taxes for their habit while being scorned by ‘Smoke-Nazi’s’ who feel they have a right to determine others conduct. Many non-smokers, realizing that these smokers are cognizant of how offensive it is and the strides they take to avoid non-smokers when smoking, as well as seeing the incremental step taken to impede personal freedoms, support the smokers and oppose these totalitarian smoking bans.

While not in our state, they have begun pushing back in other regions. Studies on second-hand smoke are being questioned, while others label the secondhand smoke scare a scam.

Some wonder why, given that anti-smoking groups label tobacco and second-hand smoke so detrimental, it isn’t just outright banned from being sold or used. North Dakota tried such a ban in 2003. It would have banned tobacco sales and use throughout the state. Someone caught smoking could face up to a month in jail.

Opposition that caused the ban to be defeated by an 84 to 4 vote in their legislature was from the North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association.

Their reason? “There's no evidence banning tobacco would prevent and reduce tobacco use because no such approach has been implemented.”

Such a total ban would also deny those same groups the money they operate on.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

If you read the Columbian, you probably missed the small blurb Tuesday, April 24, 2012 Vandals break windows at Portland church, since apparently a conscious effort was made to hide that those claiming responsibility for the vandalization are a self proclaimed homosexual activist group labeling themselves “Angry Queers.”

What they did not minimize was that homosexual group’s dislike the Mars Hill Church in Portland “for its views against homosexuality,” meaning they believe in biblical scripture and do not embrace the homosexual agenda.

KOIN 6 received an anonymous email claiming responsibility for the cowardly act of smashing century old stained glass windows at the church. They report,

“A gay-activist group, identified only as ‘angryqueers@’ in an anonymized email address, has claimed responsibility. In an email to KOIN, a reported member of the group said ‘Mars Hill is notoriously anti-gay and anti-woman’.”

“The sender took issue with Mark Driscoll, Mars Hill's head pastor, saying Driscoll has said women need to be subservient to their husbands and that gay people are a cancer. Members of this southeast Portland church deny these claims.”

The act has drawn the condemnation of several different religious and homosexual group representatives, reports the Portland Mercury.

They quote notoriously liberal Reverend Chuck Currie and the Q Center staff. “I am embarrassed by whoever did this, and sincerely hope the queer community can continue to stay focused on changing hearts and minds rather than breaking windows,” while the Q Center’s Logan Lynn says, “We have every right to be angry, given the history of hurt from the church, but violence is not the answer. If we want to be treated like human beings, we must not behave like animals.” (emphasis in the original)

Of importance to us in Washington State is the recent legalization of homosexual marriage rammed through the Washington State legislature last session and the subsequent efforts to place the matter before voters to legally redefine marriage as one man to one woman in our state and reject the legislatures ramming through of homosexual marriage.

Two efforts have been launched to restore traditional marriage in our state, Referendum 74, that seeks to “give the voters of Washington State the opportunity to determine for themselves how the first and foremost of all human institutions, marriage, will be defined,” and Initiative 1192 that would “define marriage as a civil contract between one man and one woman and would prohibit marriage for same-sex couples.”

The cowardly vandalization in Portland could also be interpreted as a “shot across the bow” to Washington State residents to discourage people from signing the petitions to preserve traditional marriage in the state, since over 30 homosexual activist groups were supplied the names and addresses of every person who signed the R-71 petitions’ in 2009 that sought to overturn SB 5688, the “Everything but marriage” law for Domestic Partners.

Even though U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle initially blocked release of that personal information, citing numerous threats from homosexual activists against supporters of overturning the law and seeing the violence in California after the passage of Proposition 8 that overturned their homosexual marriage law in 2008, Republican gubernatorial candidate, Rob McKenna, acting in his capacity as State Attorney General, fought for the release of that information to the U.S. Supreme Court and it was released almost immediately after the court decision mandating it be released.

Democrat gubernatorial candidate Jay Inslee is a strong supporter of homosexual marriage while McKenna claims on the campaign trail he does not support homosexual marriage. Only Republican Shahram Hadian has taken a strong stance against homosexual marriage in the campaigns.

We must not allow the cowardly act of a self proclaimed homosexual activist group in Portland, Oregon sway us from doing what we know is right. Even though homosexual activist groups in Washington State have vowed “uncomfortable conversations” with people who signed the R-71 petitions and were supplied to them by the efforts of Rob McKenna, we must not cower in their presence. We should not compromise our principles in the face of veiled threats designed to impede our constitutional right to our values and to participate in the initiative process.

The only way to defeat bullies is to stand up to them and that is what homosexual activists are doing, bullying those opposed to their agenda with threats of violence.

SB 5688 granted homosexual Domestic Partnerships all of the legal rights granted to opposite sex couples. As was even written in the Columbian, Same-sex marriage offers few new benefits. By placing the matter before voters and if voters decide to overturn homosexual marriage, homosexuals still retain all of the legal rights given them under the “Everything but marriage” law passed in 2009.

As stated by Greg Noelck, Regional Director R74 Campaign,

“R-74 is not anti-homosexual. Those in Washington State who do not support SB 6239 generally oppose the new law because it is bad public policy to define marriage as genderless- particularly as it relates to parenting, and because a very small minority do not have the right to redefine marriage for the vast majority; they support what everyone knows is the best way to define marriage and family: husbands and wives, moms and dads. Many people also do not support SB 6239 because it violates their religious belief and are simply exercising the same freedom of conscience that all other Washington citizens enjoy pertaining to other issues.”

“Same-sex couples have made the argument that the redefinition of marriage is important to their relationship while simultaneously arguing that it does not affect the marriage of others. This is illogical as the definition must affect either all or none of the relationships under consideration. If the definition has no practical bearing on a ‘traditional marriage’ then how can it have a practical bearing on a ‘non-traditional marriage’ when equal protection under the law has already been established?”

Pastor Tim Smith of Portland’s Mars Hill Church says he harbors no ill-will against the cowardly homosexual mob that vandalized his church.

While that is all fine and well, we must not cower before their ill-will towards us.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Back in 1934, a group of World War One Veterans traveled deep into the Mojave Desert and erected a simple Christian Cross in honor of the memory of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice by their sides. Ever since, this simple cross erected on what was then open land has been maintained by volunteers against the onslaught of weather and vandals.

The original wooden cross fell to vandals and was rebuilt out of steel pipe by Riley Bembrey, a WW1 Medic who was part of the original group who first erected the Veterans Memorial and with a lot of help from friend, Henry Sandoz.

Just prior to his death, Bembrey asked Sandoz to take care of the simple cross in the middle of nowhere, which Sandoz agreed to.

It amounted to just a simple white cross 11 miles from the nearest major highway, sitting atop Sunrise Rock in the middle of a desolate area of the Mohave Desert. To see it, you would have travel miles out of your way to find it.

For nearly 70 years, this simple cross stood in the middle of the Mojave Desert, bothering or offending no one, but offering aging WW1 veterans a place of Solace to remember old friends who died in that war.

The age of Political Correctness and the rise of atheism in the country would change all of that after the land it sat on was declared a National Preserve by the Clinton Administration in 1994.

Within a few years, Frank Buono, once the deputy superintendent of the park, filed a lawsuit protesting the cross, wanting it removed and claiming the crosses presence in the middle of a desolate desert, "[is] really inconsistent with his beliefs and he thinks that the government is, in effect, misappropriating this sacred symbol and trying to give it just a secular meaning” through his ACLU lawyer, Peter Eliasberg.

Buono claims to also be a Veteran as well as a devout Catholic.

Since 2001, the simple plain cross has been the subject of several litigations. It has been ordered removed, covered as it once was by a plywood box and a struggle between those who honor Veterans sacrifices and those who feel they have a right to cleanse the land of anything they think is offensive.

“Judge Robert J. Timlin of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California agreed with that claim, and ordered that the cross be covered up while the case was on appeal. So now a memorial dedicated to those who fought tyranny and oppression is hidden from view by a plywood box.”

“This case is part of a disturbing pattern. Like lawsuits seeking to stop the Pledge of Allegiance from being recited each morning in our public schools or to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency, the ACLU's argument in Salazar v. Buono is based on a misconception of the Constitution—that the government must be hostile to religion.”

“Far more is at stake than a single memorial. If the Supreme Court allows this cross to be destroyed, it could presage the destruction of thousands of similar memorials nationwide, inflicting sorrow on millions of Americans, especially veterans and their families.”

Shortly after the ACLU launched their assault on the Memorial, Congress, with overwhelming bipartisan support, designation the simple cross a “National Memorial,” the only WW1 Memorial to be so designated.
April 28, 2010 saw a divided US Supreme Court decision freeing the simple cross from its plywood box by a 5 to 4 decision. Veterans rejoiced at having their Memorial saved and freed from encasement in the box for all who wish to venture deep into the desert to see and appreciate.

We felt the case was over, but in the dead of night shortly after, a group of vandals stole the cross, removing it entirely and justifying their action in an anonymous letter to the editors of the Desert Dispatch.

Shortly after the theft, another anonymous group erected a replacement cross where the original stood that once spotted, was ordered removed by authorities who cited the “new” cross is not covered by the Supreme Court ruling freeing the stolen cross.

The court battles began again with the ACLU still demanding the destruction of any cross erected on the spot where the original was placed back in 1934 by Veterans.

After nearly another 2 years in the courts, it was with great pleasure to see a news release from the American Legion saying in part, “The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California approved and signed a settlement agreement between the Department of Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to exchange one acre of land at Sunrise Rock for a donated object of equal value.”

Former ACLU attorney and my friend, Rees Lloyd (Life Member American Legion Riverside Post 79; Past Commander District 21 (Cal.); Co-founder and first Director of The Defense of Veterans Memorials Project of District 21 and of The American Legion Dept. of California and the Alliance Defense Fund) sent an email today stating

“The settlement provides for a land swap in which five acres of private land will be donated to the federal government in exchange for one-acre of land on which the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial is located will be transferred to the VFW for care and maintenance to preserve the Veterans Memorial as it once was, with Cross intact.”

“That land exchange is exactly what was established by Congress in legislation authored and sponsored by Congressman Jerry Lewis (R-CA, 41st District), a decade ago after his constituent veterans in American Legion District 21 (22 Posts, 6,000 members in Riverside County), called on Rep. Lewis to help save the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial.”

Yes, you read right. This “new” settlement is exactly what was first proposed and agreed upon by a bipartisan congress long ago!

“It is a relief to end the court action on a case that should never have been in the courtroom in the first place. Congress approved a transfer of land to allow the VFW to maintain a memorial to World War I veterans – it is hard to imagine how such a move could be challenged as government establishment of religion.”

We Veterans and Patriots won this one, but the battle goes on. The war to destroy our Veterans Memorials should they be in t he form of a cross continues. The Mt. Soledad Memorial in San Diego, California is still under threat of destruction since it too is in the shape of a cross as it has been over the past 23 years.

These are our Memorials to our fallen brethren.

We cannot allow atheists and those ruled by Political Correctness to tell us how we honor our fallen.

I fully agree with Congressman Lewis as he says, “I look forward to the day when the Sandoz’s can unveil the refurbished Mojave Cross memorial and turn it over to the VFW for its proper place in honoring our nation’s defenders.”

Thursday, April 19, 2012

The annual 4th of July celebration of our Independence from Britain will be here in just over 2 months. Along with that will come the fireworks set off by the city, along with the sales of private fireworks that will be set off all around the county. People of all sorts, fun seekers from all over Clark County and Portland, Patriots hoping to honor the birth of our nation and undoubtedly the pinheads who don’t have a lick of common sense in the use of simple fireworks will be hitting the various fireworks stands spending obscene amounts of money to purchase them.

The purchases also give the city and county a revenue boost from the sales.

Along with that will come the usual Letters to the Editor condemning private fireworks, complaining about the noise, lack of courtesy of the pinheads who don’t have the sense to use them, effects on Veterans, animals, children, the elderly, what have you, the complaints will flow just as they have for years.

The Vancouver City Council held a workshop on March 5, 2012 where the discussion centered on, “considering further restrictions on sales and use days, eliminating sales of aerial and other more dangerous fireworks, or a possible multiyear phase-out to a total ban,” moving the city closer to Portland, Oregon’s limitations to the use of only “safe and sane” fireworks, if not an outright ban.

City council members are receiving letters and emails urging bans on our use of fireworks, much like was posted in the Columbian’s All Politics is Local last year, as seen here and here.

Each article is met with those opposing further restrictions and bans in the comments underneath.

Personally, I have no use for the fireworks. They do bother me somewhat and remind me of some scary times in Vietnam, such as the April 6, 1970 Sapper Attack in An Khe where 12 Helicopters were completely destroyed and 5 more heavily damaged, one from my unit being reduced to dust. When the Sappers returned and could not access the flight line due to increased guards, they attacked Hooches, killing men from the Finance Company.

I recall seeing an ammunition bunker hit by mortar fire, exploding and burning. My best buddy was shot down late in his tour, crashing in a ball of fire and killing the man in the back seat and burning my buddy pretty bad. So I don’t buy any fireworks and don’t set them off.

However, I don’t advocate banning them either. I get through every year with minimal irritation to me and can’t in good conscience, advocate those that do enjoy them be denied a couple days pleasure. I am reminded that we fought for every bodies freedom and that must also extend to their use of fireworks on the one day a year we celebrate our Independence.

Pinheads don’t fall in that category, though. As council member Jeanne Stewart said in the workshop,

“I know a lot of families get a lot of enjoyment in having fireworks parties. But really, with all the fireworks that are sold and used, there are some pinheads … who just go crazy.”

Mayor Tim Leavitt, who I most often disagree with, made a relevant observation when he said,

“There are pinheads who abuse fireworks, but there are pinheads out there who abuse every ordinance we have. I’m not finding right now enough compelling evidence to commit to an outright ban at this point.”

I have to agree with him there as I believe we have a far larger problem with DUI’s, drunk drivers causing accidents, injuring innocent people. Yet, no one proposes banning cars.

Council members Bill Turlay and Larry Smith, both also Vietnam Veterans and two men I hold in high regard, seem to advocate banning fireworks. Turlay citing how they might affect Veterans who saw combat and Smith noting the cities density has increased to the point that we are just too large for them.

I have seen a communication to the Mayor and city council from a person who has lived in our community for just one year, having moved from a city that banned fireworks and now uses their “phobia of gun type noise” urging the banning of fireworks, claiming, “For four days a year I'm forced to flee my home,” and stay in a hotel room near Portland’s Airport.

Since it is common knowledge that fireworks are legal in Washington State, Clark County and Vancouver, I am left to wonder what made this person ignore their own “phobia of gun type noise” and move to a community where fireworks are legally set off every year.

As a Veteran, I too have a problem with sudden loud noises and it happens close to me and you don’t seem me jump or duck, rest assured my stomach just turned to jelly. I also remember that the worst I was ever personally affected by fireworks was not by private fireworks being set off by my neighbors, even the pinheads, but by the city’s display down near the Old Fort many years ago. Apparently I was a little too close as I not only felt the concussion of fireworks going off overhead, but smelled the after odor we often describe as the “smell of cordite.”

I felt like things were closing in on me and began developing tunnel vision, with sounds around be beginning to sound muffled. I got up out of the chair I was in, turned away from the fireworks display and walked away from them a little distance and cleared my head. Clearly, the fireworks were having an adverse affect on me.

I have never gone back down to the cities 4th of July Celebration and I don’t recall anybody advocating banning the cities yearly celebration either. I would oppose it if they did for the same reasons mentioned above, other people’s freedoms that I served and fought for.

Clearly, this is another issue that raises strong feelings all across the board. Even though the last few years have seen a marked decrease in incidents involving fireworks misuse, acknowledged here and here, supporters of a ban have a strong argument supporting their position.

I am also left to ponder, should they succeed in banning fireworks in weeks and months ahead, how would they enforce it? Surely they realize that even if the city of Vancouver banned fireworks, those wanting them, including the pinheads, will just drive north into the Hazel Dell, Salmon Creek area to purchase them, since the County has shown no desire to follow any such ban.

Those wanting their own fireworks can also make a short drive into Cowlitz County jut north to buy them too.

Being one of those issues that hold such strong community opinions, perhaps the matter should be put to the people and not left solely in the hands of 7 elected council members. Regardless of where we each come down on this, I feel it falls into a majority rules position instead of just the city council, that seems to have no shortage on what they would like to see banned.

It leaves me wondering just what will they do when they have nothing left to ban?

Sunday, April 15, 2012

“The Republican War on Women is real, and it’s extremely dangerous. House Republicans are pursuing the most comprehensive and radical assault on women’s health and reproductive freedom in our lifetime,” said DCCC Political Director, Kelly Ward in an April 13, 2012 email.

Democrat Representative for Massachusetts Barney Frank, in a March 31, 2012 email said, “Enough already. Once again, Republicans have voted to destroy Medicare while slashing taxes for Big Oil and Billionaires.”

Vitriolic Democrat strategist James Carville sent out an email blast March 30, 2012 stating, “What’d you do yesterday? Between breakfast and dinner, Republicans in Congress voted to give Big Oil more tax breaks, cut seniors off from their Medicare, and give millionaires even more tax cuts. It’s enough to give you heartburn.”

Former President, B.J. Clinton on March 30, 2012 claimed, “[Republicans would] rather divide America than lead it. Just look at what's happening now -- are we really supposed to believe that women's rights are getting in the way of job creation?” Uh, yeah Bill, tell that to Monica.

Former Democrat Secretary of State and Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright claimed in an email dated March 27, 2012, “Here in America, Republicans have launched an all out attack on women’s rights. They’ve targeted women’s health care and are trying to roll back basic rights that most of us thought were won more than a generation ago.”

March 24, 2012 saw an email from Nevada’s Democrat Senator Harry Reid spewing, “Let me be blunt: The only reason Republicans haven’t passed their radical anti-woman, anti-worker agenda – the only reason we’re able to get anything done for the middle class – is that there are more of us than there are of them.”

New Jersey’s Democrat Senator, Frank Lautenberg hit us with, “Republicans are on the march, and if we don’t fight back, they will continue to try to run roughshod over women, the middle class, and seniors. Whether it’s waging war on women’s civil liberties, engaging in an aggressive, dangerous quest to repeal health care reform, or stripping away the safety net, radical Republicans will do it,” March 23, 2012.

These are but a small sampling of dozens and dozens of emails that appear in my throw away inbox, week after week, day after day that Democrats, some we have never even heard of doing what they can to sow seeds of discords amongst American citizens.

As we have seen over the past weeks, they quickly latched onto Rush Limbaugh’s use of the word “slut” in commenting on a female activist pimping herself out in support of taxpayers picking up the tab for her contraceptives. And since Republicans have long wanted abortions halted, many fetuses that are undoubtedly also female that might otherwise have grown into vibrant women, Democrats began their campaign of a “Republican War on Women.”

Now comes Democrat political consultant Hilary Rosen and her “dismissive claim” on presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s wife Ann has “never worked a day in her life,” even though she ran the Romney household for over 40 years and raised 5 sons to adulthood.

Well after the comment ignited a firestorm, she issued an apology saying, “I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended. Let’s declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance.”

Focus on “The substance?” Like the Democrats phony claims in the emails above, some being stated AFTER the call to “declare peace in this phony war?”

Never one to let such a “phony war” subside, wannabe “comedian” and staunch liberal Democrat defender Bill Maher, who donated $1 Million to reelect Barack Obama said on his HBO show Friday, April 15, 2012, “while being a mother is ‘a tough job,’ there is ‘a big difference between being a mother and getting your ass out of the door at 7 a.m. when it’s cold, having to deal with the boss, being in a workplace, where even if you're unhappy you can’t show it for 8 hours, that is kind of a different kind of tough thing.”

It should be remembered that Bill Maher has a long history of smearing our Troops as well as Misogyny against women that are conservative or Republicans.

While we continue to hear calls for “toning it down” or “civility” from Democrats, there is no condemnation of their “phony war” or acerbic cries demonizing Republicans, male or female. The ends justify the means, just so long as Democrats grab and hold power.

Competition is nothing new between the two major political parties, but it seems to be increasing to a fever pitch coming out of the Democrat Party today. Nothing is sacred to them in their quest for dictatorial powers over the country as they march headlong towards transforming the country to socialism.

How quick they were to claim the horrible shooting of Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords was due to conservatives. Or, the Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 1995 was because of conservative Rush Limbaugh being on the radio. Both claims made nationally in the lamestream media without one single shred of evidence.

We saw former Democrat Representative from Florida Alan Grayson’s false claims on the floor of the House, “The first part of the GOP approach to health care is: Don’t get sick. If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly.”

And now, once again we see a Democrat, after weeks of false claims of a “GOP War on Women” spewing more hateful falsehoods against those with different values and issuing a call to “declare peace” while they continue attacking.

Republicans, it’s time you woke up, grow some spine and fight fire with fire.

Democrats have no intention of “toning it down” or “declaring peace,” they are on the attack and have been for many years now. They have increased their intensity as they see victory in sight, a victory that will transform our country from a free society to the oppressions of socialism, as seen in the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba and elsewhere.

This is a war! Not a GOP “War on Women,” but a war declared by Democrats against all others in America who do not follow their quest for political power to transform the United States of America into what we were never intended to be, citizens subject to a central government.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

UPDATE: George Zimmerman voluntarily surrendered to authorities where he faces charges of second degree murder in this case. However, watching the video of the news conference held by Florida Special Prosecutor, Angela Corey causes me to question the objectivity of this case. At the beginning of her news conference Ms. Corey is heard to say, "Just moments ago, we spoke by phone with Sabrina Fulton and Tracy Martin. It was less than 3 weeks ago that we told those sweet parents that we would get answers to all of their questions, no matter where our quest for the truth led us. And it is the search for justice for Trayvon that has brought us to this moment..."

Some 44 days after claiming self defense in the shooting death of 17 year-old Trayvon Martin, and after weeks of media distortion and hype, race baiting marches and news conferences by race hucksters Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson resulting in calls for reparation and a human rights investigation by the United Nations, Barack Obama chiming in and US Attorney General Eric Holder promising to review the case, news from the special prosecutor Florida’s governor appointed to the case is that Zimmerman will be charged later today.

Exactly what the charges are to be has not been announced yet. It is thought to be some degree of manslaughter.

At issue now is whether or not Zimmerman will be able to receive a fair trial, given the emotionally charged public outrage whipped up by media and race hucksters.

A 2009 mirror case in New York, where they do not have a “stand your ground” law resulted in the acquittal of Roderick Scott, then 40 year-old Black man who shot and killed the 17 year-old White man, Chris Cervini that he felt was breaking into cars and who he claimed lunged toward him, resulting in a “self defense” shooting.

Cervini’s family maintains the 17 year old was shot in the back and Scott “got away with murder.”

But, that case did not draw race hucksters, or the United Nations or even Barack Obama’s attention.

Another case, after the Trayvon Martin shooting recently happened in Phoenix, Arizona is also a mirror image of this shooting and the media won’t even mention the name of the Black shooter.

No race hucksters, no United Nations outrage, no presidential comment, nothing outside of Phoenix media, as it should have been with George Zimmerman.

It is not known yet whether or not the charges will be based more on actual evidence or are a result of the lynch mob mentality we have seen as the media selectively leaked biased news against Zimmerman, leading many marchers to falsely claim Zimmerman stalked Martin, cornering him and shooting for wearing a hoodie and eating Skittles.

The media has done what they could to paint Zimmerman as an out of control “White man” when in fact he is not White, but Hispanic, leading to the coining of a new label, “White-Hispanic.”

As a result of the emotionally charged rhetoric, we have seen hotheads from both the Black & White communities acting out against others as well as the New Black Panthers issuing a “Wanted Dead or Alive” call for the citizen capture of Zimmerman.

No charges are being brought against the New Black Panthers for such an illegal issuance.

I am not left with a good feeling should Zimmerman be acquitted in a trial, given all of the race baiting and misinformation that has been spread on this. Can we forget the Rodney King Riots of 20 years ago where Police Officers accused of Police Brutality against King were acquitted? And that case received far less media hype than this one is receiving.

I have maintained from the beginning of this that such race baiting feeds into the hands of White Supremacists who like the New Black Panthers would love to have a race war that will leave the rest of us caught in the middle.

Should Zimmerman be convicted, will they take to the streets killing Blacks indiscriminately as many feel was the motive behind two White’s caught and arrested for killing 3 Black people and wounding 2 others recently?

The court of public opinion is not where such matters should be settled. Our system is not perfect, none are. But it is pretty good and the days of Blacks being considered guilty before they prove their innocence are long in the past. Is the pendulum swinging now where Whites will be considered guilty unless they can prove without any doubt their innocence?

Zimmerman deserves his day in court as did Roderick Scott.

But, it must be remembered that justice is never served if an injustice is created.

Monday, April 09, 2012

Sure to further enrage those falling for the media hype and selective use of the race card over the February shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, the Special Prosecutor appointed to investigate the case by Florida Governor Rick Scott today announced "There will be no grand jury in the Trayvon Martin shooting death investigation."

State Attorney Angela Corey said, "The decision should not be considered a factor in the final determination of the case," adding "At this time, the investigation continues and there will be no further comment from this office."

I take that as meaning she prefers actual evidence and facts over media hype and politically motivated racial discord that has been seen largely in play concerning this case.

In the meantime, another case, nearly a mirror to this one is drawing no media attention or outrage from either the White House or race hucksters as we see the shooting death of a 29 year old mentally deficient White man at the hands of a younger Black man in Phoenix, Arizona over what appears to be a misunderstanding after the Black mans car almost hit the White man in a drive through of a Taco Bell restaurant.

Saturday, April 07, 2012

Since the lamestream media has sensationalized the death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, much has been said about young people wearing their ‘hoodies.’ Race baiter extreme Jesse Jackson is now urging Black Youth’s to wear their hoodies up to vote. The implication being that Black youth’s wearing ‘hoodies’ are automatically suspected of wrong doing.

Such suspicions are not restricted to Black Youth, though. The Department of Homeland Security launched a campaign, “If You See Something, Say Something” that shows a series of Whites with ‘hoodies’ up, all engaged in suspicious activity, as seen in the video below.

How is that we are to now view ‘hoodies up’ as innocent when the government is who is planting in our heads that doing so is suspicious?

No, it doesn’t release George Zimmerman from responsibility, but it does shed a little light that even though the Obama Administration has expressed discontent with what we are being led to believe happened in Sanford, Florida, they are also who is inciting people to be suspicious of people wearing ‘hoodies up!!’

Friday, April 06, 2012

Tim Leavitt, understandably one of the poorer mayors to preside over the city of Vancouver, Washington, ended his Columbian live chat Friday, April 6, 2012 with the above quote, in part to reply to my question, “after your turn around on tolling, how can the public place trust in your words on opposing tax increases?”

The mayor made himself available for a good hour replying to several citizens concerned over the Columbia River Project and the continual problems that keep surfacing in regards to it, although it has already consumed nearly $150 Million of taxpayer funds and all there is to show for it are stacks and stacks of paper.

In my opinion, his replies were considerably less than forthcoming. I have to even wonder if he has a grasp on just what the “future” holds should this as currently planned CRC project go through.

An earlier reply to a question on why we don’t put the matter to city or county-wide vote he said,

“LRT is more efficient to operate than BRT and busses...besides that BRT simply cannot practically handle the demand. Remember that our population increases, our Port is doubling in size...and we already have unreasonable traffic jams. Alternatives must be included. And, why not tie into the 55 miles of LRT south of the river, for virtually no direct cost to us locally?”

A 2009 study showed Bus transit better than light rail for a planned project in Maryland. The study by the World Resources Institute determined, “buses would be cheaper and combat global warming better than a light-rail system.”

Too, we must wonder, if BRT simply cannot handle the demand, why is Leavitt and C-Tran proposing BRT for the Fourth Plain corridor?

The Oregon Supreme Court recently stated in a ruling that light rail to Vancouver, against the wishes of our citizens is the prime factor in Portland’s push for it to our community. Light rail will not carry a single ounce of freight to the port and ridership in most areas it has imposed on citizen’s remains far below expectations.

A January 2012 news conference hosted by SmarterBridge.org saw several speakers expressing doubts on the current CRC project as well as presenting viable alternatives that actually would increase flow of freight and decrease congestion along the I-5 corridor.

Leavitt rejects it all out of hand.

But disturbing is seeing him say, “for virtually no direct cost to us locally.” This project as currently planned is projected to reach some $10 Billion when factoring in interest payments over the life of the bonds.

An expected vote by citizens on yet another sales tax increase to pay for light rail operations and maintenance is opposed by Leavitt who now says he is trying to keep taxpayers from paying more tax. Of course, this is where my original question was framed from, his swift turn around on opposing tolls after winning the election in 2009.

There is no doubt the project will hit Clark County citizens the hardest with so many having to travel to Portland daily in order to work. The daily congestion is due to those people having to travel across the I-5 Bridge to and from Portland and it is they who will end up paying the lion’s share of the bridge costs by exorbitant tolls twice a day, a point Leavitt himself once made when campaigning with,

“a toll that charges Vancouver's working class for the "privilege" of crossing the river because the current administration has done next to nothing to grow jobs here in the last two decades, with the added burden of paying Oregon income tax without receiving representation, is unequitable, undemocratic, and discriminatory.”

Of course it is going to cost us locally, directly, indirectly and in every conceivable way imaginable.

This is Leavitt’s “Dreams of the Future?” An 8-story bridge towering over the city, blocking the view to the east and extending over a mile into the city with hopeful plans to vitalize under the bridge? Is it his “dream” that future generations of citizens and businesses will be footing the bill for this project for decades as well as paying more of our hard earned money to Portland for the “privilege” of having their “choo choo train” invading our community?

Asked should we trust his opposition to raising taxes to pay for light rail maintenance and operations he responded,

“As I learned, tolling means that here locally we pay less for the project. I ask over and over if you'd prefer a property tax? ....a sales tax? ....a business and occupation tax? The answer is over and over....no. The answer over and over is....if the Feds and States can't come up with all the money, and there must be a local share, than tolls is it. That means if you don't use it, you don't pay. With tolls, that means that others (from outside our community) are paying a portion of our benefit! I know some aren't happy that I changed my position, but it is the right position...to the least impact on our community...versus the other options. Less taxes, less impact on our citizens. That's where I've landed.”

Less taxes? With C-Tran planning on another sales tax increase this November? With the city contemplating a possible additional $20 fee yearly on car license tabs? And “less impact?” With businesses being shut down in order to demolish their buildings for 3 planned parking garages to accommodate light rail?

And again, who uses the bridge more than those forced to seek work in Portland since not enough effort is made to attract good paying jobs to Vancouver and Clark County? Of course Clark County and Vancouver citizens will be impacted by this, not to mention some expected 8 to 10 years of increased congestion as the new bridge will be built alongside the existing bridges.

Even Jefferson Smith, Democrat candidate for Portland Mayor sees problems staring us in the face in this project as currently planned and seems to be the only raising serious questions, instead of just rolling over to the special interests pushing this project at any and all costs.

Listening to him in the April 5, 2012 OPB Think Out Loud video interview, he seems to have grasp on what areal “Dream of the Future” is about.

Leavitt does not. His “dream” looks more like a nightmare.

Then too, those who forget the “history of the past” are bound to repeat those “mistakes of the past.”

Words from Heroes To Heroes. Do No Harm, Especially to Yourself

Subscribe To Right In A Left World

Followers

Contributors

Important Links

Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing, great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. - Winston Churchill

“A veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve - is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The 'United States of America', for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'” (Author unknown)

---------------------------------

I stood up, I showed up, I stepped forward.
I raised my right hand, I stood in the gap, I walked in the fire. I did not run, I did not hide, I did not dodge, I did not evade.

Consequently...

I have nothing to prove, no one to convince, those who matter, already know. Those who don't, never will.
(Author Unknown)

African-Americans, are you tired of being short-changed by the Democrats you keep voting for? Fed up with their empty promises while you stay poor? Can’t understand why your lives never improve? You will find answers at the National Black Republican Association